agenda of ordinary meeting of council - tuesday, 9 june 2020€¦ · that the minutes of the...

Ordinary Meeting of the 39th Council

9 June 2020

AGENDA

Notice of Meeting

To: The Mayor and Councillors

The next Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Stirling will be held

on Tuesday 9 June 2020 in the City of Stirling Council Chamber,

25 Cedric Street, Stirling commencing at 7.00pm.

Stuart Jardine PSM | Chief Executive Officer

Our Vision, Mission and Values

Vision

The City of Stirling will be a place where people choose to live, work, visit and invest. We will

have safe and thriving neighbourhoods with a range of housing, employment and

recreational opportunities. We will engage with our diverse community to help shape our

future into the City of Stirling – City of Choice.

Mission

To serve the City’s diverse community through delivering efficient, responsive and

sustainable services

Values

The City of Stirling’s core values are:-

Integrity

Community Participation

Accountability

Respect

Environment

Diversity

Disclaimer

Members of the public should note that in any discussion regarding any planning or other

application that any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or officer of

the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as

notice of approval from the City. No action should be taken on any item discussed at a

Council meeting prior to written advice on the resolution of the Council being received.

Any plans or documents contained in this document may be subject to copyright law

provisions (Copyright Act 1998, as amended) and the express permission of the copyright

owner(s) should be sought prior to the reproduction.

AGENDA OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 9 JUNE 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

PRELIMINARIES ........................................................................................................ 5

1. OFFICIAL OPENING .................................................................................................. 6

2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES............................................................................. 6

3. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 6

4. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST .................................................................................. 6

5. PETITIONS ................................................................................................................. 6

6. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE ................................................................................................... 6

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................... 7

8. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................................ 7

9. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ................................................................................. 7

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................ 7

11. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ........................................ 7

12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES...................................... 7

13. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 4.2(4) OF THE MEETING PROCEDURES LOCAL LAW 2009 .................................................. 8

13.1 LONG TERM CYCLING NETWORK ............................................................... 8

13.2 ANNUAL REVIEW OF COST CONTRIBUTION RATES - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN FOR RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT WORKS ............................................................................. 22

13.3 BULK VERGE GREEN WASTE OPTIONS ................................................... 28

13.4 SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS FOR PERIOD 10 ENDING 30 APRIL 2020 .............................................................................................................. 34

13.5 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH ENDING 30 APRIL 2020 ................................................................. 42

13.6 CLOSURE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY - FARRIS PLACE AND MORRIS ROAD, INNALOO - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING .................... 71

13.7 ACQUISITION, CLOSURE AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY 29022 BEING LOT 66, HOUSE NUMBER 46R, NORMANBY ROAD, INGLEWOOD - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING ......................................... 83

13.8 RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - DEDICATION OF RIGHTS OF WAY FOR UPGRADE IN THE 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR ............................................................................................................ 96


13.9 TENDER FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE AND WASTE SORTING SERVICES ................................................................................. 114

13.10 TENDER FOR THE STEPHENSON AVENUE EXTENSION PHASE 1 ....... 119

13.11 REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY .......................................... 126

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ........................... 153

15. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING ............. 153

16. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ......... 153

17. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ......................................................... 153

18. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .................................................................. 153

19. CLOSURE .............................................................................................................. 153


5

Mayor Mark Irwin

Balga Ward

Councillor David Boothman JP Councillor Keith Sargent

Coastal Ward

Councillor Karen Caddy Councillor Felicity Farrelly

Doubleview Ward

Councillor Stephanie Proud JP Councillor Elizabeth Re

Hamersley Ward

Councillor Chris Hatton Councillor Karlo Perkov

Inglewood Ward

Councillor David Lagan Councillor Bianca Sandri (Deputy Mayor)

Lawley Ward

Councillor Joe Ferrante Councillor Suzanne Migdale

Osborne Ward

Councillor Adam Spagnolo Councillor Lisa Thornton

PRELIMINARIES

1. Opening prayer:-

"Almighty God we ask you to guide us in all our discussions to show goodness, honesty, understanding and wisdom in all that we undertake to do. May we respect each other's views at all times and we ask all of this in your name."

2. Acknowledgement of Country:-

"On behalf of Councillors, we would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Wadjak people of the Nyoongar nation, on which this meeting is taking place and show our respect for Elders past, present and emerging."

3. Councillors and visitors are requested to turn off mobile phones.

4. Councillors and City officers are reminded to disclose any declarations of financial interest and interests affecting impartiality.

5. All Councillors are requested to activate their microphones when addressing the meeting.

6. Councillors and visitors are reminded that audio recording of the Council meeting proceedings is prohibited unless prior approval has been granted.


6

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Presiding Member to declare the Ordinary Meeting of Council open.

2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES

Nil.

3. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

4. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Nil.

5. PETITIONS

Nil.

6. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE

At the previous Council meeting, all questions were submitted prior to Public Question Time. All responses were published in the minutes of that meeting.

Nil.


7

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Members of the public who wish to ask question/s at the Council meeting are requested to submit these through the City’s online Public Question Time submission form (click here). Members of the public who submit question/s online do not need to attend the meeting. Responses to all questions submitted will be published in the Minutes of the meeting*, in accordance with Section 5 of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009. * If the response provided is that the question is ‘taken on notice’, a further response will be published in the following Council meeting’s Agenda and communicated to the submitter.

8. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

9. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 26 May 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record of proceedings.

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

11. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

Nil.

12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES

As part of the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, at its meeting held 24 March 2020, Council resolved to NOT HOLD Committee meetings until further notice from the Council (Council Resolution Number 0320/025). At its meeting held 26 May 2020, Council resolved to RESUME the conduct of Committees meetings from 16 June 2020 (Council Resolution Number 0520/026).

https://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/forms/ordinary-council-meeting-public-question-time-subm


Item 13.1 8

13. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 4.2(4) OF THE MEETING PROCEDURES LOCAL LAW 2009

In accordance with Clause 4.2(4) of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009, the Chief Executive Officer may include on the agenda of a Council meeting, in an appropriate place within the order of business, any matter which must be decided, or which he considers is appropriate to be decided, by that meeting.

13.1 LONG TERM CYCLING NETWORK

Report Information

Location: City Wide

Applicant: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: Manager Engineering Services

Business Unit: Engineering Services

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide

Authority/Discretion

Definition

☐ Advocacy when Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.

☒ Executive the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

☐ Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. It is also when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.

☐ Quasi-Judicial when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

☐ Information Purposes

includes items provided to Council for information purposes only, that do not require a decision of Council (i.e. - for 'noting').


Item 13.1 9

Recommendation

1. That Council ENDORSES the aspirational Long Term Cycle Network developed in collaboration between the City and the Department of Transport.

2. That the City ADVERTISES the Long Term Cycle Network plan on the City’s website and SEEKS public comment on the proposed network for consideration in further amendments to the plan.

3. That Council REVIEWS the funding commitments in future budgets whilst acknowledging that the program is reliant on matching contributions from the Department of Transport.

Report Purpose

To seek Council endorsement of the aspirational Long Term Cycling Network (LTCN) developed in collaboration between the City and the Department of Transport (DOT).

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Draft Long Term Cycle Network for City of Stirling ⇩

Attachment 2 - Long Term Implementation Plan ⇩

Attachment 3 - Long Term Implementation Schedule ⇩

Available for viewing at meeting

Nil

Background

Western Australia has all the components to be a great place for riding a bike – warm weather, rolling landscape and outstanding natural beauty. Across Perth and Peel, a good level of existing bicycle infrastructure has been established, but this can be improved by developing an integrated network that connects suburbs with one another. The DOT is working with 33 local government authorities in Perth and Peel to agree on bicycle routes that link parks, schools, community facilities and transport services, to make bike riding a convenient and viable option. The aim of the LTCN project is to develop an aspirational blueprint to ensure state and local governments work together towards the delivery of one continuous bicycle network, providing additional transport options, recreational opportunities, support for tourism and commercial activity, and creating a bicycle network catering for all ages and abilities. The DOT is now seeking Council’s endorsement of the agreed LTCN which moving forward will be the agreed long term network and will guide funding allocated through the WA Bicycle Network Grants Program administered by DOT.

CO_20200609_AGN_3152_AT_files/CO_20200609_AGN_3152_AT_Attachment_9773_1.PDF




Item 13.1 10

Comment

Project Overview The LTCN has involved consultation with 33 local governments across Perth and Peel. The project aims to agree to a long term aspirational bicycle network for the region. The vision is for a network of safe and attractive bicycle routes:-

To provide continuous routes along major corridors;

To establish links between strategic, secondary, district, specialized activity centres and public transport services; and

To provide connections to schools, education sites and local centres. Project History In 2016, as part of the State Government’s long term transport strategy (Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million), the Transport Portfolio released the Cycling Network Plan. The aspirational long term bicycle network identified within the Plan was based on a robust methodology of connecting all key activity centres. However, the Plan was developed by the DOT in-house with little consultation with local governments due to the time constraints to deliver the project. In 2017/2018, the DOT was successful in receiving funding across a two-year period to deliver the LTCN project. This required detailed engagement with 33 local governments across Perth and Peel to agree to a long term aspirational bicycle network for the region that supports and addresses local and regional bicycle connections. LTCN Project The DOT’s project started in July 2018 and is to be completed by June 2020. The DOT and local government officers have worked together to identify LTCN routes, and categorize routes using a new simplified three tier route hierarchy of Primary Routes, Secondary Route and Local Routes. The categorization of routes has been based on the function of a given route within the network, as follows:-


Item 13.1 11

Following the DOT and local government officers agreeing an aspirational draft LTCN, it was reviewed by Main Roads WA, Public Transport Authority and Metronet teams. This process has ensured that these state agencies are aware of the aspirational LTCN routes proposed and have made comments to assist in shaping the network in relation to their state controlled assets. Why is the LTCN Important? An endorsed aspirational LTCN across the Perth and Peel region can assist in leveraging additional funding for bicycle infrastructure. It can assist State Government in any discussions or applications regarding Federal funding for bike riding, such as infrastructure, programs and campaigns. It can also assist the DOT to leverage additional funding for bicycle infrastructure, including funding made available to local governments via the WA Bicycle Network Grants Program (administered by the DOT). An endorsed LTCN across the Perth and Peel region will assist with planning of the bicycle network and routes. It will assist State agencies (Main Roads WA / Public Transport Authority / Metronet) with infrastructure planning and delivery. It will also assist local governments with network planning, cross boundary connectivity and bicycle route prioritization. How Will the LTCN Be Updated in the Future? The DOT will be updating the guidance for local governments in relation to developing local bicycle plans. It is expected that the new guidance will require local governments to review their endorsed LTCN as part of the process of developing and updating their bicycle plan. As part of the process to develop or update a local bicycle plan, local governments typically conduct public consultation to enable the community to assist in shaping the Plan. It is envisaged that local governments will seek community comment on the aspirational LTCN as part of this process. Local governments typically review local bicycle plans on a five-year renewal basis – as part of the bike plan review, local governments and the DOT can work together to modify their endorsed LTCN. New routes can be added to reflect land use changes and new development. Existing routes can be realigned to parallel corridors if details are known, which excludes a route from being considered to accommodate future bicycle infrastructure (engineering constraints, land tenure issues, etc.). Council Endorsement The City is seeking Council to endorse the aspirational LTCN developed in collaboration with the DOT. It is important to recognize that endorsement of the LTCN does not commit Council nor State Government agencies to deliver all, or any part, of the LTCN within a particular timeframe, nor does endorsement commit any party(s) to fund any specific route within the LTCN. Council endorsement simply confirms support for Local and State Government agencies to work together in delivering the aspirational LTCN over the longer term.


Item 13.1 12

City of Stirling LTCN and Implementation Plan A copy of the Draft LTCN for the City of Stirling, as developed in collaboration between the City and the DOT, is provided in Attachment 1. Some of the primary routes are within the control and management of state government agencies, including the east-west route along Reid Highway, and the north-south route along Mitchell Freeway. The remaining primary and secondary routes within the City’s Draft LTCN have been examined in greater detail to determine a very broad cost estimate of the route, which then informs a Long Term Implementation Plan for cycling routes within the City over the next 25 years. The cost estimates have been determined based on an approximate value per kilometer length from previous project stages, and then giving consideration to potential intersection treatments at conflict points. The routes that form part of the City’s Long Term Implementation Plan are shown on the plan provided in Attachment 2. Each route is given a unique name, comprising of the following:-

P or S, which denotes a Primary or Secondary route;

E/W or N/S, which denotes whether the route has an East/West or North/South alignment;

A sequential route number (1, 2 or 3) which generally denotes the relative priority; and

A letter (A, B, C or D) which denotes the stage number for longer routes. The Moorland Street Bicycle Boulevard, which was developed following Council’s endorsement of the City’s Integrated Cycling Strategy in 2015, and is about to commence construction of the final stage, is shown as Route P E/W 1, connecting the Stirling Station and the Scarborough Beach precinct. The estimated timeframe for the implementation of the various routes has been developed on the basis of a municipal allocation of $1,000,000 per annum for cycling improvements, and a matching co-contribution from the DOT. The Long Term Implementation Schedule, as provided in Attachment 3, would be subject to receiving co-contributions from the DOT.

Consultation/Communication Implications

The LTCN project has involved consultation with 33 local governments across Perth and Peel to agree a long term aspirational bicycle network for the region. The LTCN had been developed and agreed between DOT and local governments, and the network was subject to a review by Main Roads WA, Public Transport Authority and Metronet teams in relation to any routes within or crossing state-controlled assets. Given the timeframes imposed by the DOT, it has not been possible to advertise the draft LTCN to the public at this stage. However, it is a recommendation of this report to advertise the LTCN plan on the City’s website and seek public comments on the proposed network for consideration in further amendments to the plan. It is also important to recognise that, prior to the implementation of any works along a designated route, the City would undertake further public consultation with the community on that particular route.


Item 13.1 13

Policy and Legislative Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

The DOT is seeking the aspirational LTCN to be endorsed by Councils across 33 local governments in Perth and Peel. Council endorsement is considered necessary to demonstrate region wide agreement of the LTCN, which in particular may assist in any Federal funding discussions and applications. From July 2020, all WA Bicycle Network Grants for Perth and Peel local governments will be linked to the endorsed aspirational LTCN. As such, only routes within the endorsed LTCN will be eligible for grants and only local governments with a Council endorsed LTCN will remain eligible for grants.

Strategic Implications

Built Environment: Liveable and accessible City

Outcome B3: Built infrastructure that meets community needs

Sustainability Implications

The following tables outline the applicable sustainability issues for this proposal:-

ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Greenhouse emissions Every bicycle trip, as an alternative to the car, contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Pollution Bicycles are entirely non-polluting and, as a single occupant vehicle, can replace cars, which are the most polluting way in which single occupants are transported.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Health, wellbeing and safety Cycling contributes enormously to the health and wellbeing of individuals that participate, and can be made even safer with the provision of proper infrastructure.

Transport and access Cycling is the most efficient form of transport and can provide good connectivity and access with just a small proportion of the overall transport budget.


Item 13.1 14

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure Cities that have introduced good cycling infrastructure have shown a significant increase in economic activity as a result.

Conclusion

The DOT has been working in conjunction with all local governments in Perth and Peel to develop an aspirational LTCN. This network will provide a blueprint to ensure state and local governments work together towards the delivery of one continuous bicycle network, providing additional transport options, recreational opportunities, support for tourism and commercial activity, and creating a bicycle network catering for all ages and abilities. The WA Bicycle Network Grants for Perth and Peel local governments will be linked to the endorsed aspirational LTCN. Only routes within the endorsed LTCN will be eligible for grants and only local governments with a Council endorsed LTCN will remain eligible for grants. Council’s endorsement of the City’s LTCN is now being sought.


Item 13.1 - Attachment 1 - Draft Long Term Cycle Network for City of Stirling 15


Item 13.1 - Attachment 2 - Long Term Implementation Plan 20


Item 13.1 - Attachment 3 - Long Term Implementation Schedule 21


Item 13.2 22

13.2 ANNUAL REVIEW OF COST CONTRIBUTION RATES - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN FOR RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT WORKS

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Manager Engineering Services

Business Unit: Engineering Services

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition







Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the revised Cost Apportionment Schedule for the Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works (2020) as shown in Attachment 1 to take effect as from 1 July 2020.

Report Purpose

To review the estimated cost rates adopted by Council for the purpose of calculating an owner’s development contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works in Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3).


Item 13.2 23

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Cost Apportionment Schedule - Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works ⇩


Nil

Background

The Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works in Schedule 11A of LPS3 came into operation on 15 December 2015. In accordance with the provisions of Part 6B ‘Development Contribution Areas’ of LPS3, a Cost Apportionment Schedule, which sets out the applicable methodology and estimated cost rates for calculating cost contributions for land owners within the development contribution area, was first adopted by Council at its meeting held 1 March 2016 (Council Resolution Number 0316/017). Where the Cost Apportionment Schedule contains estimated costs, Council is required to review the estimates annually and to have the estimated costs independently certified by an appropriately qualified person(s) in accordance with Clause 6B.11 of the LPS3. Council has complied with this requirement annually, with the last review undertaken at its meeting held 14 May 2019 (Council Resolution Number 0519/004) wherein it adopted the following cost rates to take effect from 1 July 2019:-

Cost Item 2019 Adopted Contribution Rate Per Linear Metre of Laneway Frontage (ex GST)

ROW Construction $440.00

ROW Lighting – Concurrent installation with ROW construction

$117.00

ROW Lighting – Retrofit installation $156.00

A further annual review of the cost estimates is now due to be undertaken.

Comment

The City has undertaken an assessment of the current estimated cost rates for laneway upgrade works, which includes ROW construction, ROW lighting installation concurrent with ROW construction, and retrospective ROW lighting installation. The City’s estimates were based on the costs of similar upgrade works carried out in the 2019/2020 financial year. An independent verification of the cost estimates was also obtained from consultant quantity surveyors, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB). The following table sets out the estimated rates adopted in 2019, the current estimates provided by RLB, the City’s revised estimates and the City’s recommended rates for adoption in 2020.



Item 13.2 24

Cost Item

Cost Rate Per Linear Metre of Lot Frontage to a ROW (ex GST)

2019 Adopted

Rate

2020 RLB Estimate

2020 CoS Estimate

2020 CoS Recommended

Rate

ROW Construction $440.00 $465.50 $569.00 $517.00

ROW Lighting – Concurrent installation with construction

$117.00 $157.00 $96.00 $96.00

ROW Lighting – Retrofit installation

$156.00 $187.00 $118.00 $118.00

ROW Construction estimates The City’s current estimated cost rate for ROW construction has risen by $129 (or 29.3%) per linear metre of lot frontage from the previous year’s adopted rate and is $103.50 (or 18%) above the RLB estimate. RLB has advised that based on an industry standard estimation tolerance of +/-20% for works of this nature, the difference between its estimate and the City’s estimate is just within this limit. The City’s cost review this year has been based on more limited cost data from the 2019/2020 laneway constructions due to a number of projects being undertaken in-house that are still in progress at this time, due to unforeseen delays in some and later programmed commencement dates for others. It is recommended that a rate reflecting the average of the RLB’s and the City’s estimates be adopted, this being $517 per linear metre of lot frontage. This rate represents an increase of $77 or 17.5% over the 2019 adopted rate. The City acknowledges the desire to maintain rate increases as low as practically possible. However, it is important to recognise that the ROW Development Contributions are based on a user-pays principle, and is only triggered when the nature and value of development exceeds certain criteria. If land owners have no intention of pursuing redevelopment of their property, they will not be required to contribute. It should also be noted that the City already funds a significant proportion of the works that will be undertaken as part of the ROW Program, and the expected proportion of funding that will be received from development contributions is estimated to be in the order of 30%. ROW Lighting – Concurrent installation with construction The City’s current estimated cost rate for ROW concurrent lighting installation has decreased by $21 (or 17.9%) per linear metre of lot frontage from the 2019 adopted rate. The City’s estimate is lower than RLB’s estimate by $61 (or 63%) per linear metre of frontage which is outside of the industry standard estimation tolerance and therefore unable to be verified by RLB. The City’s estimate based on recent contracted costs is likely to reflect some degree of saving from contracting several laneways to each contractor and grouping of adjoining works together while RLB’s estimate assumed works are undertaken on a standalone basis. It is recommended that the City’s estimated rate of $96 per linear metre of lot frontage be adopted for 2020.


Item 13.2 25

ROW Lighting – Retrofit installation The City’s current estimate cost rate for retrofit lighting installation has decreased by $38 (or 24%) per linear metre of lot frontage from the 2019 adopted rate. The City’s estimate is lower than RLB’s estimate by $69 (or 58.5%) per linear metre of lot frontage which exceeds the industry standard estimation tolerance and therefore unable to be verified by RLB. As per above, the City’s estimate based on recent contracted costs is likely to reflect some degree of saving from contracting several laneways to each contractor and grouping of adjoining works together while RLB’s estimate assumed works are undertaken on a standalone basis. It is recommended that the City’s estimated rate of $118 per linear metre of lot frontage be adopted for 2020.


Clause 6B.10.1 of LPS3 requires Council to make a copy of the Cost Apportionment Schedule available to all owners in the development contribution area. Following Council’s adoption of the revised estimated cost rates, a copy of the Cost Apportionment Schedule will be published on the City’s website from 1 July 2020.


The annual review of cost estimates contained in the Cost Apportionment Schedule for the Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of LPS3.


The adoption of the revised estimated cost rates as shown in the Cost Apportionment Schedule in Attachment 1 will facilitate collection of development contributions associated with the Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works that more closely reflects the prevailing cost of works.



Outcome B2: Accessible and connected City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.


Item 13.2 26

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity The upgrade and maintenance of laneways will result in improved accessibility to infill housing and commercial land uses adjacent to ROWs and improve the overall appearance of the local areas.

Transport The upgrade and management of laneways by the City will provide an improved standard of access for developments adjoining laneways in the long term and improve access permeability for pedestrians and cyclists in these areas.

Cultural and heritage value The upgrade and use of rear laneways for vehicle access to abutting developments located in the Heritage Protection Areas supports the preservation of traditional streetscapes in these areas.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure Provide alternative access for infill developments with opportunity to improve land use efficiency and the retention of existing dwellings on infill sites.

Conclusion

A review of the estimated ROW construction and lighting infrastructure cost rates contained in the Cost Apportionment Schedule for the Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works has recently been carried out by the City, including an independent verification of cost estimates as required under Clause 6B.11 of LPS3. It is recommended that the revised Cost Apportionment Schedule as shown in Attachment 1 be adopted by Council for the purpose of administering development contributions under the said Development Contribution Plan effective from 1 July 2020.


Item 13.2 - Attachment 1 - Cost Apportionment Schedule - Development Contribution Plan for Rights of Way Improvement Works 27


Item 13.3 28

13.3 BULK VERGE GREEN WASTE OPTIONS

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Manager Waste and Fleet

Business Unit: Waste and Fleet

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition







Recommendation

1. That the City CONTINUES to conduct bulk verge green waste collections as per the current service provision.

2. That a business case be PREPARED to transition the green waste collection service to an On-Demand Green Skip Bin Service detailing the following:-

a. A City provided or contracted service;

b. Operation as either a stand-alone service or to be combined with the On-Demand Junk Skip Bin service; and

c. A notional implementation date of 1 July 2022.


Item 13.3 29

Report Purpose

To provide Council with information, including alternative options, for the collection of bulk verge green waste.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Nil.

Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

At its meeting held 25 February 2020, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0220/057) as follows:-

“That a report be PRESENTED to the Community and Resources Committee meeting to be held 5 May 2020 providing alternative options for the collection of bulk verge green waste including an On-Demand Green Skip Bin service.”

The City currently undertakes the green waste collection service on a nine month cycle by an in-house team which negates the requirement for contractual considerations. One of the services provided by the City is the collection of bulk green organic waste from residential verges. This service is provided by a dedicated team of officers and equipment on a nine month cycle across the City, and has been in place in the current manner for approximately five years, but has been an ongoing service for many years prior. The City currently collects approximately 3,500 tonnes of mostly uncontaminated green waste from the bulk green verge collection each year, which is in turn aggregated at the Recycling Centre Balcatta and transported for processing at the Purearth facility in Woottating. It is noted that the establishment of the 3-bin kerbside collection service to include a garden organics bin has reduced the tonnages of the existing bulk green verge collection service by about half.

Comment

City Officers have assessed four options in compiling this report:-

1. Status Quo – bulk green verge collections on a programmed schedule;

2. On-demand collection – verge presented (no skip);

3. On-demand skip bins – Contractor provided; and

4. On-demand skip bins – City provided.


Item 13.3 30

Option One – Status Quo

Option One retains the existing service, which continues with a scheduled collection service on a nine month cycle. The team works methodically from house to house through each collection area. The City does not restrict the amount of green waste that residents place out for collection; and the team is able to easily manage contamination at each collection. In noting that a bulk verge service for green waste in one form or another has been ongoing within the City for over 50 years, the service is well entrenched and residents are highly familiar with it. Option One is highlighted as the most cost effective option. Option Two – On-demand collection service

As part of the review, the City investigated the option to collect green waste from the verge, using the on-demand methodology. This is where a resident would place their green waste on the verge, book in a collection, and the City would schedule the collection. This is seen to be highly service focused, and very convenient for the customer, who could arrange for green waste collections at their convenience. Several methods were reviewed, but it was generally held that utilising crane trucks for the majority of collections would be most suitable, but also maintaining a bobcat and rear loader for those areas and material compositions where a crane truck is not suitable. City Officers generally indicate that this method is not efficient – crane trucks are slow and unwieldy to operate for this purpose, and there are issues operating around trees and power lines. If the bobcat / rear loader combination was to be of primary consideration it is thought to be too inefficient with the continuous requirement to load / unload the equipment. Even though this option seems to be relatively cost effective, any additional support required to complete some of the collections could see costs escalate. In addition to this being viewed as operationally inefficient, the City does not recommend pursuing this option. Option Three – On-demand Green Waste Skips (Contractor)

The City has capacity using the existing contract with SUEZ which provides the on-demand bulk junk skips, to also extend into provision of skips to collect bulk green waste. The benefits of using an on-demand skip bin service are:-

Highly service focused and convenient for the customer – the skip can be ordered at any time rather than waiting for the next collection round.

Green waste is moved off the verge in approximately three days. The current service could have material presented on the verge waiting for collection for up to three weeks.

There would be less damage to the verge.

The visual amenity would be improved by having green waste contained within a receptacle.


Item 13.3 31

However, some of the challenges of operating an on-demand skip bin service are:-

Managing peak and off-peak demand times – there would be excessive demand through spring, as an example.

The ability to manage contamination is reduced, and illegal dumping is increased. (It is often mistakenly believed that anything can be put in a skip.)

Skips provide a limited capacity – the City would still be seeking to manage consistent three cubic metre assets. Whilst the City can provide a higher limit on the number of green waste skips available per property, some of those residents within heavily vegetated areas may be put out with the capacity restrictions of each skip.

A much higher degree of administration is required to support on-demand skip services.

During off-peak and low demand times, appropriate laydown / storage space is required for excess empty skips.

Moving to a skip bin service provided by a contractor is the least cost effective option. Outsourcing this service could have an impact on six existing full time equivalent (FTE) positions. Option Four – On-demand Green Waste Skips (City)

The City has assessed a comparison to provide on-demand skips for green waste internally. Even taking into account contingency, this is shown to be a more cost effective option than implementing an on-demand skip program with a contractor. The City is also able to take advantage of all of the lessons learned and processes developed which currently support the on-demand skip bin service for bulk junk. The City would need to implement an appropriate bookings management platform, whilst also allowing suitable lead time to procure the required trucks and skip bins. It is not expected that there would be any impact to FTE numbers as a result of the City changing to this service methodology. The service methodology to deliver an on-demand green waste skip service would be modelled on the existing on-demand bulk junk skip service:-

Empty skips are delivered by flatbed or skip trucks.

Full bins are emptied by a front lift truck.

The bin is then retrieved and redistributed by the flatbed or skip truck. The City would manage futile deliveries and collections; including skimming overfull skips in the same manner. The data is showing that an average of approximately 17,575 properties are presenting material for collection on the verge each year (current year’s data) at approximately 230kgs per collection. If the service methodology changes to skips, it is estimated that approximately 30% of properties would require more than one skip. The cost modelling shown is based on delivering 25,000 skip services per year.


Item 13.3 32

Summary Whilst Option 4 represents some broad opportunity to change or even improve the service level, officers believe that an appropriate lead time to complete a more detailed business case is necessary. Transitioning to an On-Demand Green Waste Skip may also facilitate a shift of the On-Demand Junk Skip from a contracted service to an in-house service. Whilst the current contracted skip service expires in June 2025, it is prudent to consider the opportunities and value that combining these two service areas would represent. These matters would be further explored in a detailed business case. A lead time of approximately 12 months would be necessary to procure and roll out an On-Demand Green Waste Skip service.


If the service methodology is to change, an extensive communication and education campaign will be required to support the change. Communication and education would be key to ensuring that any transition to a new service delivery model is successful.


Nil.


The following projected annual operating costs are attributed to each option:-

1. $1,703,389 to retain the Status Quo.

2. $1,734,254 for on-demand collections, verge presented.

3. $2,393,009 for skips (contractor provided).

4. $2,027,610 for skips supplied internally. If Council proceeds with Option Four, an amount of capital would be required to implement the change. At this stage, quotes have not been attained, but capital expenditure requirements are estimated to be:-

$750,000 for trucks.

$1,000,000 to acquire the required quantity of skip bins.

A bookings management system would need to be developed and implemented to support the service.


Natural Environment: Sustainable natural environment

Outcome N1: Sustainable natural resources


Item 13.3 33



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Waste generation There is not expected to be a change to annual green waste tonnages if service methodologies are changed.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity Improvements to visual amenity could be expected if an on-demand skip service is implemented.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The City has been operating a significant green waste verge collection program for over 50 years, with the nine month collection cycle having been in place in its current form for approximately five years. This is a core waste service provided by the City and is valued by residents. The recommendation allows for the continuation of the cost effective status quo through these turbulent times, whilst allowing the City plenty of time to prepare a detailed business case to support any amendments to the green waste service.


Item 13.4 34

13.4 SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS FOR PERIOD 10 ENDING 30 APRIL 2020

Report Information

Location: Not Applicable


Reporting Officer: Finance Manager

Business Unit: Finance Services

Ward: Not Applicable

Suburb: Not Applicable


Definition







Recommendation

That the schedule of cheques and payments made for Period 10, 1 April 2020 amounting to:-

Municipal Fund $20,649,602.73

Trust Fund -

Reserve Fund 333,894.71

TOTAL $20,983,497.44

be RECEIVED.


Item 13.4 35

Report Purpose

To inform Council of funds disbursed for the period 1 April to 30 April 2020.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Schedule of Accounts - April 2020 ⇩

Attachment 2 - Cheque Listing Attachment - April 2020 (ECM Document No: 12071846) (previously circulated to Councillors under separate cover)*


Nil

Background

Nil.

Comment

The reported schedules are submitted in accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


Nil.


Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be prepared each month and presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared.


Nil.


Governance: Making it happen

Outcome G4: Sustainable organisation




Item 13.4 36



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The schedule of cheques drawn and payments made during the reporting period be presented.


Item 13.4 - Attachment 1 - Schedule of Accounts - April 2020 37


Item 13.5 42

13.5 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH ENDING 30 APRIL 2020

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Manager Finance

Business Unit: Finance Services


Suburb: Not Applicable


Definition







Recommendation

That the monthly Statement of Financial Activity and other relevant Financial Reports for the month ending 30 April 2020 be RECEIVED.

Report Purpose

To apprise Council of the financial position of the City at 30 April 2020 in compliance with the provisions of Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended.


Item 13.5 43

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - A Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement ⇩

Attachment 2 - A Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme - City Wide ⇩

Attachment 3 - An Operating Statement by Nature - City Wide ⇩

Attachment 4 - An Operating Statement by Nature - Directorate ⇩

Attachment 5 - A Statement of Financial Position ⇩

Attachment 6 - Net Current Asset Position Statement ⇩

Attachment 7 - A Statement of Cash Flows ⇩

Attachment 8 - A Statement of Capital Transactions - Summary ⇩

Attachment 9 - A Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit ⇩

Attachment 10 - An Investment Summary ⇩

Attachment 11 - An Investment Report ⇩

Attachment 12 - A Statement of Financial Performance of City Services ⇩


Nil

Background

The City's Financial Reports are produced in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended. Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that local governments produce a monthly statement of financial activity and such other supporting information as is considered relevant by the local government. The City of Stirling (City) produces a number of reports to assist in the understanding of its operations and financial position. The City's financial reporting framework provides Council, management and employees with a broad overview of the City Wide financial position. The format for the financial report is in two parts:- 1. A financial summary comprising a Statement of Financial Activity and an explanation

of the composition of net current assets, less committed assets and restricted assets plus an explanation of each material variance in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 34 (Attachment 1).

2. A package of other relevant financial reports as detailed above (Attachment 2 – 12).














Item 13.5 44

Comment

To comply with the requirements of Regulation 34, a Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement is attached. A summary of this statement follows:- Comments are required for variances that are more than 10% of budget and $100,000. The current month’s reports comments are a comparison to budget review which was approved by Council on 10 March 2020. Part 1 Monthly Statement of Financial Activity for period ending 30 April 2020

It should be noted that this statement only includes transactions as they relate to the Municipal Fund and it removes the non-cash items to allow an assessment of the City's dependency on rate levies. A summary of this statement follows:-

YTD Actual $'000

YTD Budget $'000

Amended Budget $'000

Adopted Budget $'000

Opening Funds Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) Operating Activities Excluded Amount Attributed to Operating Activities Investment Activities Grants & Subsidies Equity Share of Investment Proceeds from Disposal of Assets Profit / (Loss) on Disposals Net Movement in Capital Assets Amount attributed to Investment Activities Funded From Transferred to/from Accumulated Funds Total Amount Raised from General Rates Closing Funds Net Current Assets at End of Period - Surplus/(Deficit)

34,488

79,612

(190,620)

(111,008)

43,172

(67,836)

7,002 860

3,563 1,396

(37,761)

(24,940)

35

140,525

82,271

24,216

78,728

(198,795)

(120,067)

40,225

(79,842)

9,516 833

1,911 (323)

(48,728)

(36,792)

271

140,542

48,396

24,216

86,837

(244,272)

(157,435)

46,373

(111,062)

33,690 1,667 4,828 1,642

(95,220)

(53,394)

(571)

140,811

0

25,932

87,492

(237,813)

(150,320)

42,124

(108,196)

34,490 1,667 4,828 1,642

(99,467)

(56,840)

(1,624)

140,728

0


Item 13.5 45

An explanation of major variances between YTD Actual and YTD Budget for the period ending 30 April 2020 is as follows:- Operating Revenue 1. Grants & Subsidies

This revenue item has a positive variance of 17% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to revenue from the Commonwealth Home Support Programme and Department of Community Development. 2. Interest

This revenue item has a negative variance of 14% of YTD Budget. This can be attributed to lower interest rates and slower receipt of annual rates than forecast in budget.

3. Registration, Licence & Permits

This revenue item has a negative variance of 11% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to revenue from building licenses and development applications fees being lower than forecast in budget. Budgets were reduced at budget review which will impact over the remainder of the financial year. Operating Expenditure 4. Other

This expenditure item has a positive variance of 17% of YTD Budget. This is mainly due to lower costs for elected members than forecast. Non - Operating Activity 5. Profit or Loss on Disposal of Assets and Proceeds from Disposal of Assets

Profit on disposal of assets is mainly the result of the disposal of Lot 109, House Number 80, Grindleford Drive, Balcatta during October. This has been transferred to Reserves.

6. Gifted & Previously Unrecognised Asset

This relates to the recognition of assets associated with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority share of costs for the Scarborough Foreshore Redevelopment. Investment Activity 7. Grants & Subsidies

This revenue item has a negative variance of 26% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to phasing of grants money receivable from Department of Main Roads for the Stephenson Avenue Phase 2 construction. This is a timing issue only as paid in line with works undertaken. 8. Capital Expenditure

See separate report for details on variances in capital expenditure “A Statement of Capital Transactions – Detail by Business Unit”.


Item 13.5 46

Financial Activity 9. Transfers to and from Accumulated Funds/Reserve

The variance is mainly due to the timing of reserve transfers as compared to budget. Regulation 34 also requires an explanation of the composition of the Net Current Assets less committed assets and restricted assets. The following table provides this information: -

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalent

Trade receivables

Inventory

Other current assets

Total Current Assets

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Trade and other payable

Employee related provisions

Total Current Liabilities

$’000

154,898

13,646

2,186

432

171,163

(13,641)

(15,514)

(29,155)

NET CURRENT ASSETS 142,008

Less Restricted Assets

(75,250)

Net Current Assets adjusted for Committed and Restricted Assets

Add Back Cash Backed Leave Provisions

CLOSING FUNDS

66,758

15,514

82,271

Part 2 Other Relevant Financial Reports Other supporting information considered relevant to this financial report is attached. The report comprises:-

A Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - by Directorate;

A Statement of Financial Position;

A Statement of Cash Flows;

A Statement of Capital Transactions - Summary;

A Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit;

An Investment Summary;


Item 13.5 47

An Investment Report; and

A Statement of Financial Performance of City Services.

The following table summarises the City's operations as reported by the Operating Statement by Nature (Attachment 3). These are more traditional accrual-based Operating Statements consolidating all Council operations except Trust Fund transactions. They contain both cash and non-cash (e.g. depreciation) transactions.

YTD

Actual

$'000

YTD

Budget

$'000

Amended

Budget

$'000

Adopted

Budget

$'000

Operating Activity

Revenue

Expenditure

Change in Net Assets

Resulting from Operations

Non-Operating Activity

Total Non-Operating Activity

Net Result

Capital

Position Compared with Budget

220,137

(190,620)

29,517

10,763

40,280

(36,731)

3,549

219,270

(198,795)

20,475

10,276

30,751

(48,728)

(17,977)

227,648

(244,272)

(16,624)

36,998

20,374

(95,220)

(74,846)

228,221

(237,813)

(9,592)

37,799

28,207

(95,924)

(67,718)


Each month Business Units are issued detailed management reports for their review and a Budget Control meeting is held with the Chief Executive Officer, Executive Team and Finance to discuss significant variances and status of capital works programs.


Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended requires all local governments to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the revenue and expenditure for the month in question. Financial Management Regulation 34 also requires this statement to be accompanied by:-

a. An explanation of the composition of the net current assets, less committed assets and restricted assets;

b. An explanation of material variances; and

c. Such supporting information that is relevant to the Local Government.


Item 13.5 48


The administration is mandated by Council to operate in a financially sustainable and responsible manner. As such, the City ensures that it closely monitors its financial against approved budget.



Outcome G4: Sustainable organisation



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

This report demonstrates responsible financial management in line with the City’s strategic priorities to ensure that the City remains in a solid financial position.

Conclusion

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires local governments to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity.


Item 13.5 - Attachment 1 - A Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement 49


Item 13.5 - Attachment 2 - A Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme - City Wide 50


Item 13.5 - Attachment 3 - An Operating Statement by Nature - City Wide 51


Item 13.5 - Attachment 4 - An Operating Statement by Nature - Directorate 52


Item 13.5 - Attachment 5 - A Statement of Financial Position 53


Item 13.5 - Attachment 6 - Net Current Asset Position Statement 54


Item 13.5 - Attachment 7 - A Statement of Cash Flows 55


Item 13.5 - Attachment 8 - A Statement of Capital Transactions - Summary 56


Item 13.5 - Attachment 9 - A Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit 57


Item 13.5 - Attachment 9 - A Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit 58


Item 13.5 - Attachment 10 - An Investment Summary 59


Item 13.5 - Attachment 11 - An Investment Report 62


Item 13.5 - Attachment 12 - A Statement of Financial Performance of City Services 63


Item 13.6 71

13.6 CLOSURE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY - FARRIS PLACE AND MORRIS ROAD, INNALOO - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING

Report Information

Location: Pedestrian Access Way linking Farris Place and Morris Road, Innaloo


Reporting Officer: Director Infrastructure

Business Unit: Property Services

Ward: Doubleview

Suburb: Innaloo


Definition

☒ Advocacy when Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.

☐ Executive the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.





Recommendation

1. That Council CONSIDERS the outcomes of the public and statutory advertising of the proposed closure of the Pedestrian Access Way linking Farris Place and Morris Road, Innaloo in accordance with Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997, including the submissions received.

2. That Council PROCEEDS with Option 3, to not Close the Pedestrian Access Way linking Farris Place and Morris Road, Innaloo.

Report Purpose

To report on the consideration of the submissions received following the public and statutory advertising of the proposed closure of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) linking Farris Place and Morris Road, Innaloo.


Item 13.6 72

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan ⇩

Attachment 2 - Aerial Plan ⇩

Attachment 3 - Details of Full Submissions to the Statutory and Public Advertising (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)


Nil

Background


1. “That Council APPROVES the required public and statutory advertising of the proposed closure of the Pedestrian Access Way linking Farris Place and Morris Road, Innaloo in accordance with the Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 with a report on the outcomes of the public and statutory advertising being presented to a future Community and Resources Committee.

2. That the Department of Communities be ADVISED of Council’s resolution and outcomes of the public and statutory advertising.”

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and included:-

Sending notices to owners and occupiers within 400m of the PAW;

A notice being placed in the West Australian Newspaper as well as in the four Community Newspapers which circulate throughout the City of Stirling;

Advertising Signs were erected at each entrance of the PAW and remained there throughout the advertising period; and

An Online Survey was placed on the City’s Your Say webpage during the advertising period.

The advertising officially commenced on 14 March 2020 and ran for a period of 37 days (35 statutory days extended for two public holidays) closing at 5.00pm on Monday 20 April 2020.

Comment

During the Statutory Advertising period and associated community consultation:-

A total of 48 submissions were received.

Five submissions were received in writing and 43 submissions were received via the online survey (no duplicate responses between response mediums were received).

100% of the submissions received were from owners/occupiers within the consultation area.

No submissions were received from owners/residents outside the consultation area.

https://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/morrisroad




Item 13.6 73

A summary of the submissions received is outlined in the table below as well as the results of the survey responses:-

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED QUANTITY PERCENTAGE

I DO support the closure of the PAW 30 62.5%

I DO NOT support the closure of the PAW 18 37.5%

Total Respondents 48 100%

Questions asked were as follows:-

Q1 What is your connection to the access way? Number of Reponses

Proportion of all Responses

I'm a nearby resident but don't use it 15 37.51%

I don't live nearby but I use it

1 2.38%

I live nearby and I use it

21 50.00%

Other - Including: owner of a property; pass by on way to shopping centre; own an investment property near the access way; look after the Scout Hall; land owner in area.

5 11.90%

Q2 How often do you use the access way? Number of Reponses

Proportion of all Responses

A few times a day 2 4.76%

Once a day

5 11.90%

Not every day but a few times a week

12 28.75%

Never

15 35.71%

Other - Including: Rarely; occasionally; I don't use it over safety concerns; sometimes; once a week; once a fortnight; used by my tenants regularly.

8

19.05%

The table below summarises the reasons identified in support of the closure of the pedestrian access way and includes comments from the City in response.


Item 13.6 74

Number of times issue is raised#

Issue City’s comment

10 Anti-Social behaviour/the area is not safe

While it is acknowledged that there are anti-social behaviour issues in the precinct, anti-social behaviour is not considered to emanate from the PAW and cannot be directly attributed to the PAW. The closure of the PAW is not expected to improve anti-social behaviour within the precinct. However, it should be noted that while the closure of the PAW will potentially limit the exposure of anti-social behaviour to Farris Place, any anti-social behaviour in the precinct will be transitioned to other street and road networks. Whilst temporary in nature, there was a marked decrease in anti-social behaviour at this location during the period in which the City trialled and implemented alternate measures to closure.

9 Vandalism, fences often broken, graffiti, littering.

The City has worked with the Department of Communities (Housing) in respect of alternate fencing options along the PAW and the Department of Communities’ vacant lot. This low line chain link fencing provides better visibility and sightlines down the PAW from Morris Road which improves passive surveillance of the PAW. The low line chain link fence itself and the improved visibility are expected to reduce opportunities for graffiti and increase ability to repair damage to the fence whilst the land remains vacant.

5 Criminal behaviour in the area While it is acknowledged that there are anti-social behaviour issues in the precinct, anti-social behaviour is not considered to emanate from the PAW and cannot be directly attributed to the PAW.

3 Drug use Drug use in the area along with needles left on pathways cannot be directly attributed to the PAW being open.


Item 13.6 75

Number of times issue is raised#

Issue City’s comment

1 Alternate routes available and just as convenient

PAWs are viewed as an important part of the pedestrian and cycling network as they enable connection through areas that are not available for cars. PAWs offer access to public community infrastructure.

1 PAW is not a real necessity The PAW links Farris Place, Innaloo and adjoining streets to Morris Road, Innaloo and provides pedestrian access to and from the shopping centre at Morris Place, Stirling Community Centre and other amenities in Innaloo. The PAW represents the shortest walkable distance in many cases. The PAW is additionally considered a safer route when compared with alternate options such as Barnes Street and Morris Road which have higher volumes of vehicles. It should be noted that approximately 52% of submissions received identified that they used the PAW, with 45% stating they use it more than once per week.

1 Access Way is dark. The Farris Place/Morris Road PAW is atypical and superior to other PAWs, in that it has street lighting along the PAW (most PAWs are not illuminated).

# These values do not represent the total number of submissions received, but rather the number of times an issue was raised across all submissions. Where a submission cited multiple ‘issues raised’ these were included within each ‘issues raised’ count.

A summary of the reasons identified in submissions against the closure of the PAW is included below:-

Safest and fastest way to access the surrounding amenities;

Young and old appreciate the convenience and safety of the walkway;

Easy access to the bus route children use for travelling to school;

Good access to the shops and to the gym;

Access way is the best route from Morris Place to get to the Barnes Street bus stop for work;

Easy access for all nearby residents to the oval for early morning exercise, dog walking, sports on weekends or training during the week, and picnics;


Item 13.6 76

Great and easy access for the elderly to the bowling club;

The problem is not the lane way but the immediate area has too many State Housing residencies;

Concept of hiring the hall for day bookings and looking at possible options for those with additional vehicles to have them park up in the Morris Road car park rather than creating a hazard on the road in Farris place, which of course will be extremely difficult if the PAW is closed; and

There are other measures which could be used that don't impact public access in the neighbourhood.

The complete details of all submissions (both for and against the closure) received during the Statutory Adverting period have been provided within Confidential Attachment 3 – Details of Full Submissions to the Statutory and Public Advertising. PAWs are viewed as an important part of the pedestrian and cycling network as they enable connection through areas that are not available for cars thus increasing the attractiveness of the alternative modes of transport. The City has recently undertaken minor improvement works to the PAW which have included:-

Grab rails being installed at the Farris Place PAW entrance and replaced/reconfigured at the Morris Road PAW entrance which provide a ‘slow/transition point’ at both entrances as well as better preventing any vehicular access to the PAW.

In negotiation with the Department of Communities, the Colourbond fence has been replaced along the boundary of Lot 721 with a 1m low lying chain-link fence which provides additional passive surveillance and offers increased visibility along that length of the PAW.

The City stationed its mobile CCTV within the PAW area to act as a deterrent for any anti-social behaviour within the area.

Given the results of the statutory advertising, the City can proceed in one of three ways following the request for closure of the PAW, these include:-

Close the Pedestrian Access Way;

Temporarily Close the Pedestrian Access Way; or

Not Close the Pedestrian Access Way. Option 1 - Close the Pedestrian Access Way In light of the submissions received, Council can opt to proceed with the closure of the PAW. This would result in the City submitting a request to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) requesting the permanent closure of the PAW. This application would require the approval of the DPLH and for them to negotiate the relevant land transactions with the abutting owners to consolidate the PAW land with the adjoining private lots. Once finalised, the Applicant would be responsible for:-

Purchase of the PAW land from the State of WA;

Survey of the PAW land into the adjoining private land;

Undertake the required works to remediate any cross-overs, re-instate kerbing and removal of PAW infrastructure.


Item 13.6 77

Following completion of the above, the PAW land will ultimately be fenced off and amalgamated with the neighbouring private properties. Option 2 – Temporarily Close the Pedestrian Access Way As an alternative to permanent closure, the City could request that DPLH consider a temporary PAW closure. Temporary closure can be considered where:-

Other methods of dealing with safety, crime and anti-social behaviour have proven to be unsuccessful; and

Permanent closure is not desirable due to the possible need for future access. This option follows the same process as ‘closing a pedestrian access way’ which included the public advertising and consultation previously undertaken by the City. In the event the DPLH agree to a temporary closure, the period of the closure will need to be agreed between the relevant state government authorities and the City. In this respect, the City proposes that the temporary closure be implemented for a period of six months. It is expected that the PAW would retain its existing land tenure (owned by the State) with the City agreeing to continue its requirement to maintain the PAW throughout the temporary closure period. This would not amount to any significant changes as the City is already responsible for the management and maintenance of the PAW as an unvested facility. If supported, the City would be required to fence or gate both entrances to the PAW effectively restricting access to this land. Additionally, the City may be required to contribute to the cost of fencing the side boundary of the PAW to the north. The estimated cost of fencing the PAW is expected to amount to approximately $15,000. At the end of the temporary closure period, the PAW must be re-opened or a further request be submitted to the DPLH to consider further temporary closure or undertake further consultation to permanently closure the PAW. Option 3 – Not Close the Pedestrian Access Way In light of the submissions received, Council can opt not to closure the PAW. This would effectively see the PAW remaining open to the public. Generally, neither the City nor the State Government supports the closure of PAWs unless there is a considerable and reported history of antisocial issues, directly attributable to the PAW, that are not capable of being resolved. In respect of the above options, the City is recommending that Council proceed with Option 3 for the following reasons. The PAW is an important link between the Morris Road Shopping Centre and the residential community to the west of Morris Road, Innaloo. The closure of this PAW would significantly increase the distance that these residents would have to walk to get to local amenities, such as Morris Road Shopping Centre and public transport along Morris Road. In general, the PAW provides good connectivity to the residents of Farris Place and surrounding residential areas. The Farris Place/Morris Road PAW is atypical and superior to other PAWs, in that it has street lighting along the PAW (most PAWs are not illuminated) which reduces the likelihood of antisocial behaviour in the PAW, improves visibility and increases pedestrian safety.


Item 13.6 78

The closure of PAWs needs to be considered in both the current environment as well as in consideration of future planning. PAWs serve as an important link to both public and private infrastructure and amenity. As population and density of suburbs increase (possibly not in the short term), pedestrian and cycle networks become more important as a way to cater for wider community use as a conduit between established residential areas.

While the survey results indicate that 62.5% of respondents support the closure of the PAW, a result of 37.5% of respondents do not support the closure of the PAW; this is considered significant. The percentage of the community that does not support the closure of the PAW demonstrates that there is a substantial number of users who continue to utilise the PAW on a regular basis and consideration of any closure should take into account the loss of amenity to that sub-section of the community who currently receive a benefit from the infrastructure.

It should be noted that the PAW was established circa 1956 as part of the subdivision of the area and has remained available as a means of pedestrian access throughout this time.

As anti-social behaviour in the area seems to be an overriding issue, investigation into ways of tackling the problem of anti-social behaviour in the area may be a better solution than closing the PAW. Opportunities which can be investigated further to reduce anti-social behaviour in the precinct include:-

The City seeking to advocate that any future design should seek to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design elements in any new development to Lot 721. Development of Lot 721 may further increase the passive surveillance in the area and along the PAW. Development of Lot 721 would also potentially reduce any dumping of rubbish on what is currently a vacant parcel of land.

Investigation into increasing the City’s CCTV surveillance network at the adjoining Morris Road Shopping Centre which may provide additional long term surveillance opportunities within the precinct and off the Morris Road entrance to the PAW. This may act as a further deterrent for anti-social behaviour in the area.

Upon review of the submissions received, the City does not support the closure of the PAW due to its provision of connectivity to local amenities within the area, and the high rate of submissions which do not support the closure and the indicative use of the PAW included in these submissions.

However, the City welcomes the opportunity to work closely with the abutting owner (Department of Communities), the residents surrounding the PAW, local businesses and Scarborough Police to look at initiatives to address the community’s concerns regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.


In accordance with Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 an advertisement was placed in the following local community newspapers: West Australian Newspaper as well as in the four Community Newspapers on 14 March 2020.

In addition to advertising in print media, the City also:-

Sent notice to all owners and occupiers within a 400m catchment of the PAW;

Signposted advertising at both entrances of the PAW; and

Included an online survey on the City’s Your Say webpage through the advertising period.


Item 13.6 79


Closure of a PAW is considered under Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the State Government’s ‘Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways – Planning Guidelines’. In the event that Council resolves not to close the PAW, in line with Council Policy N101005 – Pedestrian Access Ways, no further applications will be considered to close the PAW within three years of the Council resolution.


Costs associated with increasing CCTV surveillance, along with investigating further measures to reduce anti-social behaviour in the precinct should be considered.






ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity The retention of the PAW will result in improved accessibility to public transport, community infrastructure and infill housing adjacent to the PAW, and will improve general access to local amenity.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure The City’s assessment includes the impacts of the PAW closure in respect of local connectivity and access to public community infrastructure.


Item 13.6 80

Conclusion

Following Statutory advertising and public consultation with respect to the closure of the PAW linking Farris Place to Morris Road, it is recommended that Council does not proceed with the closure of the PAW as:-

Submissions indicate that 37.5% do not support the closure of the PAW;

Submissions indicate that 50% of submitters live nearby and use the PAW (this includes both by school age and aged demographic);

The PAW provides good connectivity to residents west of Morris Road to public and community infrastructure such as the Morris Road Shopping Centre, Innaloo Community Centre and other amenities; and

Whilst it is acknowledged there is anti-social behaviour in the area, the closure of the PAW is unlikely to result in a decrease of anti-social behaviour in the precinct.


Item 13.6 - Attachment 1 - Locality Plan 81


Item 13.6 - Attachment 2 - Aerial Plan 82


Item 13.7 83

13.7 ACQUISITION, CLOSURE AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY 29022 BEING LOT 66, HOUSE NUMBER 46R, NORMANBY ROAD, INGLEWOOD - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING

Report Information

Location: Right of Way 29022 being Lot 66, House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood

Applicant: Rosalyn Joyce Beavan and Rochelle Karen Beavan

Reporting Officer: Director of Infrastructure


Ward: Inglewood

Suburb: Inglewood


Definition








Item 13.7 84

Recommendation

1. That Council CONSIDERS the outcomes of advertising relating to the acquisition, closure and dedication of Right of Way 29022, being Lot 66, House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood, including the submissions received.

2. That Council REQUESTS the Minister for Lands to undertake the following land transactions in relation to Right of Way 29022, being Lot 66 on Diagram 7615 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1040 Folio 669 and more commonly referred to as House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood:-

a. Acquire the whole of Right of Way 29022 in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997;

b. Close the portion of Right of Way 29022 abutting Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood for amalgamation into the said lot in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997; and

c. Dedicate the remaining portion of Right of Way 29022 as public road in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

3. That the Minister for Lands be INDEMNIFIED against any claims arising from the actions to effect this proposal.

Report Purpose

To report on the submissions received in response to the City’s statutory advertising and to seek Council’s approval to acquire Right of Way 29022 being Lot 66, House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood (ROW 29022) and subsequently:-

Close portion of ROW 29022 for amalgamation into the abutting Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood (Lot 2); and

Dedicate the remainder of ROW 29022 as public road.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan ⇩

Attachment 2 - Plan ⇩


Nil




Item 13.7 85

Background


“1. That Council APPROVES advertising of the proposed acquisition and subsequent closure and dedication of Right of Way 29022 being Lot 66, House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997.

2. That the Minister for Lands be REQUESTED to undertake the following land transactions (subject to no objections being received during the statutory advertising period) in relation to Right of Way 29022 being Lot 66 on Diagram 7615 being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1040 Folio 669 more commonly referred to as House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood:-

a. Acquire the whole of Right of Way 29022 in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997;

b. Close portion of Right of Way 29022 for amalgamation into the abutting land being Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997; and

c. Dedicate the remaining portion of Right of Way 29022 as public road in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

3. That Council APPROVES for the City to enter into a Legal Agreement with the owner of Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood detailing:-

a. Each party’s responsibility for costs and obligations under the proposed land transactions; and

b. That all land transactions are to occur concurrently meaning that if one (or more) of these land transaction does not proceed, the agreement will be void and no transactions shall occur.

4. That the Minister for Lands be INDEMNIFIED against any claims arising from the actions to effect this proposal.”

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Sections 52 and 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 by serving formal notices to the owners abutting and surrounding the Right of Way. A formal notice was placed in the Western Australian. The advertising officially commenced on 14 March 2020 and ran for a period of 37 days (35 statutory days extended for two public holidays) closing at 5.00pm on Monday 20 April 2020.


Item 13.7 86

Comment

The City received six submissions from owners abutting ROW 29022. The following is a schedule summarising the submissions received and the officer’s comments to the issues raised.

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response

Respondent 1 submission

Giving the ownership of part of the ROW to an individual landowner would be inequitable and in effect detract from the usefulness of the ROW to all other landowners. Any decision to consider closure of this part of the ROW should be delayed up until before the road development of the existing ROW is due (2025/2026). This would allow any unforeseen considerations regarding the closure become evident to ensure optimum road development for all landowners backing on to the ROW. In addition, current social distancing prevents the usual neighbourhood meetings and debate.

ROW 29022 is owned in freehold by the owner of Lot 2 who has had the responsibility of maintaining ROW 29022 to date. The owner is not prepared (or required) to give consent for the acquisition and dedication of the ROW unless the owner is compensated for the loss of the private land. As a private ROW, with the exception of the two lots at House Number 253, Crawford Road and House Number 46, Normanby Road, all other lots along Crawford Road and Normanby Road up to College Street and abutting ROW 28081 do not have easement rights under Section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to use ROW 29022. The proposal seeks to achieve an acceptable outcome that will enable the southern portion of ROW 29022 to be dedicated as a public road ensuring continuity of access to the adjacent ROW 28081 in the future as envisaged by the Rights of Way Management Strategy. There are many other L-shaped laneways in the City’s district which are functioning adequately without issues. They operate no differently to ROWs that are open at both ends onto a public street.


Item 13.7 87

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response


Any resident wanting to access the lane has three entry points. If ROW 29022 is closed at the Crawford Road end it forces traffic into one of two entrances. The current entrance adjacent to Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road minimally affects the residents because the house is set back several metres and there is a fence. The units at House Number 46, Normanby Road have no such advantage and it would be impossible to fence them off without severely reducing their access, amenity and aesthetics, not to mention the restriction of light.

Developments on Category 2 ROWs have been required to setback the ground floor of a dwelling a minimum 2m from a ROW for a number of years. It is envisaged that the setback pattern for future developments along this ROW will be similar to House Number 46, Normanby Road. The ROW provides common access to a number of lots, therefore its shared use should be anticipated by all lots abutting the ROW.


Future infill, renovation or re-development of any of the approximately 32 properties on the block bounded by Robinson Street, Crawford Road, College Street and Normanby Road is likely to result in car access to the rear of those properties, via the ROW that enters from College Street and runs between Normanby and Crawford Roads.

Closure of the ROW connecting the above-mentioned ROW to Crawford Road would result in all traffic from the above-mentioned ROW being channelled towards Normanby Road, instead of proportionate shares from Crawford and Normanby Roads being similarly distributed to Crawford and Normanby Roads.

There is no indication that all future traffic along ROW 28081 will concentrate access at the Normanby Road entry/exit point in preference to College Street which appears to be a safe and viable alternative access point. It is more likely that motorists will access / egress the ROW from either the College Street or Normanby Road end dependent upon their journey origin and destination. With regards to traffic movement around the Inglewood Primary School site, the stated preferred anti-clockwise direction of traffic flow around the school would only apply to parents actively involved in setting down or picking up students from the school. All other motorists would be able to negotiate the school site in the direction that best suits their journey, whilst driving to the prevailing conditions (i.e. traffic congestion, pedestrians crossing, etc.) and adhering to all applicable traffic rules and regulatory signage.


Item 13.7 88

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response

The intersections of Normanby and Robinson Road, and Crawford and Robinson Road, are within a School Zone adjacent to Inglewood Primary School. The Normanby Road intersection is already congested during peak drop-off and pick-up times and both traffic flow and parking in this area presents a hazard to the safe movement of young children to/from the school.

Channelling all traffic from the

ROWs to the Normanby/Robinson intersection would likely generate a flow of traffic north-east bound through the School Zone, counter to the preferred flow of traffic for school drop-off’s/pick-ups (south-west through Robinson, anti-clockwise around school). Car traffic flow is already impaired by parents’ angle-parking on the school side (south-east) of this block of Robinson St (Normanby to Crawford Roads), creating a risky environment for children to cross. Increasing the control-flow would increase the risk of pedestrian-car, cycle-scooter/car, or car/car accidents involving young children travelling to/from school.

Three established residences on

House Number 46, Normanby Road have bedrooms adjacent to the proposed dedicated road; it would seem unreasonable to channel a disproportionate amount of vehicle movement from the ROW past these bedroom windows. (If the plans for those properties were submitted for development after the existing ROW was dedicated as road, would they pass planning approval).

Residents abutting the ROW that need to pick up or set down students at Inglewood Primary School can exit at the Normanby Road end of the ROW, turn left onto Normanby Road, cross Robinson Street and access the pick-up/set down area adjacent to the school in Normanby Road, while still travelling in the preferred anti-clockwise direction. Those residents abutting the ROW whose journey does not involve student pick up or set down at Inglewood Primary School can exit the ROW at either the College Street or Normanby Road end, whichever best suits their journey destination. With the closure of the northern section of ROW 29022, it is anticipated that only localised residents’ traffic in ROW 28081 and the remaining ROW 29022 will be using the ROW in the future. If ROW 29022 is retained as a through way between Crawford Road and Normanby Road, there is greater likelihood of it being used as a bypass by other circulating traffic at peak times. ROW 29022 is owned in fee simple by the owner of Lot 2 who has had the responsibility of maintaining the ROW to date. The owner is not prepared to give consent for the acquisition and dedication of the ROW unless she is compensated for the loss of the land. In the absence of an amicable agreement with the owner of ROW 29022, future connectivity of ROW 28081 may be in doubt and likely to incur significantly more costs to achieve. The proposal seeks to achieve an acceptable outcome that will enable the southern portion of ROW 29022 to be dedicated as a public road to ensure continuity of access to the connecting ROW 28081 in the future. The City’s Local Planning Policy No.6.5 ‘Developments and Subdivisions Abutting Rights of Way’ encourages adjacent developments to orientate windows from habitable areas towards ROW.


Item 13.7 89

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response


I am opposed to the closure and sale of this Right of Way, as it will remove my right to rear lane access to my property from Crawford Road. I would also like to request that the council investigates whether this Right of Way is currently being blocked. It has been my experience, that this Right of Way is constantly blocked.

ROW access to the rear of Lot 7, House Number 17, Robinson Street, Inglewood will continue to be available via Normanby Road following the closure. The closure is not considered to result in any significant impediment to the rear access to this property. The City’s Parking Local Law 2014 prohibits parking in a ROW. Residents encountering illegal parking in a ROW are advised to report any incidents to the City to enable prompt attendance as they occur.


My house’s only master bedroom is located within two meters of ROW 29022 and has a large floor to ceiling window directly facing ROW. Conversion of the ROW to a roadway was clearly never intended in the design and approval of the development. The proposal, in combination with the City’s future ROW Upgrade (Council meeting 11/2/2020 minutes), will generate 24 hour traffic movements which would render that one master bedroom unfit for purpose, detracting from the utility and value of my property.

The City’s Local Planning Policy No.6.5 ‘Developments and Subdivisions Abutting Rights of Way’ encourages adjacent developments to orientate windows from habitable areas towards ROW. Developments on Category 2 ROW have been required to setback the ground floor of a dwelling a minimum 2m from a ROW for a number of years. It is envisaged that the setback pattern for future developments along this ROW will be similar to that of House Number 46 Normanby Road. With the closure of the northern section of ROW 29022, it is anticipated that only localised residents would use ROW 28081 and the remaining ROW 29022 will be in the future. If ROW 29022 is retained as a through way between Crawford Road and Normanby Road, there is greater likelihood of it being used as a bypass by other circulating traffic at peak times.


Item 13.7 90

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response

Lots abutting the ROWs have infill development potential under the existing density zoning of R30 irrespective of whether the ROW are retained in private ownership or dedicated into public roads. Dedication of a ROW into a public road does not necessarily lead to increased traffic in a laneway, however the process would enable the City to address future maintenance and management issues once it is vested under the City’s control. The ROW already existed at the time of the development at House Number 46, Normanby Road and it would have been an expectation that the ROW have the potential to service future infill developments on the abutting lots. Use of either the Normanby Road or College Streets entry/exit by future residents would depend on the origin and destination of the journey.


If ROW 29022 is amalgamated into House Number 253, Crawford Road, it would set a precedent for owners of other properties to acquire a 50% portion of the ROW that abuts their properties. This then brings into question the relevance of the City of Stirling ROW Management Plan.

The owners of House Number 253, Crawford Road may be looking to develop their property and require ROW 29022 to facilitate this.

If the Rights of Way are to be retained, they must remain clear to allow access from either end/s.

If one end is impeded by parked cars (which occurs often) or by closing off, it becomes a nightmare for residents that utilise and share the ROW for temporary access to their properties, or for emergency or service vehicles.

ROW 29022 is owned in freehold by the owner of Lot 2 who has had the responsibility of maintaining ROW 29022 to date. The owner is not prepared (or required) to give consent for the acquisition and dedication of the ROW unless the owner is compensated for the loss of the private land. As a private ROW, with the exception of the two lots at House Number 253, Crawford Road and House Number 46, Normanby Road, all other lots along Crawford Road and Normanby Road up to College Street and abutting ROW 28081 do not have easement rights under Section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to use ROW 29022. The proposal seeks to achieve an acceptable outcome that will enable the southern portion of ROW 29022 to be dedicated as a public road to ensure continuity of access to the connecting ROW 28081 in the future as envisaged by the Rights of Way Management Strategy.


Item 13.7 91

Submission number

Submission details

ROW 29022

City’s Response

The Minister’s Sewer line runs within the ROW. As a result it cannot be built over and therefore must remain clear.

If the Council abandon the ROW

Management Plan and close off the ROW’s it would benefit all residents as they gain a portion of extra land,(at a cost) and would no longer have to deal with criminals gaining access to their properties by scaling fences backing on to the ROW (which happens from time to time).

The current closure proposal seeks to resolve a unique situation. As such, its approval would not set a precedent for the closure of other Category 2 ROWs in the City’s Rights of Way Management Strategy and is not an abandonment of the Strategy objectives. Local Planning Policy No.6.5 ‘Developments and Subdivisions Abutting Rights of Way’ requires all developments and subdivisions with primary access via a ROW to provide a 1.0m to 1.5m wide pedestrian access leg to the original street unless the walking distance from the development to the nearest full-width public street is less than if the pedestrian access leg was provided, and that the ROW has been fully sealed and dedicated as a public road. The pedestrian access leg allocated to each lot that is oriented to a ROW provides alternative access to services including emergency services. The City’s Parking Local Law 2014 prohibits parking in a ROW. Residents encountering illegal parking in a ROW are advised to report any incidents to the City’s Community Safety Business Unit to enable prompt attendance. The Water Corporation has a sewer within the ROW but they are not adversely affected by this proposal. The only requirement the Water Corporation would have is to register an Easement over the portion of sewer affected by closure of the ROW that is to be included into Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road.


Item 13.7 92

Other considerations:

The owner of ROW 29022 will not provide consent for the City to dedicate the ROW if an option to close and amalgamate the portion abutting Lot 2 is not supported. If this happens, the alternatives will be for the City to:-

1. Abandon upgrade plans for this ROW which will result in ROW 28081 being dead-ended at the southern end, with the only possible exit and entry from College Street; or

2. Compulsorily acquire the ROW for dedication which will have a compensation implication for which the owner has already indicated an expectation.

It should be noted that there is no existing implied access rights under Section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 for the majority of the lots along ROW 28081 to use ROW 29022 except for Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road and Lot 9, House Number 46, Normanby Road at the southern end of ROW 28081. If an amicable resolution is not reached with the owner, and the owner takes action to restrict use of ROW 29022 to only those lots that immediately abut this ROW, the City has no authority to prevent such actions if it remains a private street in private ownership.


In line with statutory requirements, the City wrote to all owners abutting and surrounding the Right of Way advising of the City’s intent to request the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to acquire, close and dedicate various portions of ROW 29022. The date of issue of the notice was 14 March 2020 with submissions closing on 20 April 2020.


Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997 provides that a local government may request the Minister for Lands to acquire as Crown land any land designated as a private road (private ROW) on a plan of survey or sketch plan lodged with the Registrar of Titles.

Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 provides for a local government to request the Minister for Lands to dedicate a portion of land as a road.


The City will be responsible for all survey costs associated with the closure and inclusion of the portion of ROW 29022 into the privately owned Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood which is estimated to cost approximately $3,000.

The costs of undertaking a request for dedication by the City will be of an administrative nature and will not require significant expenditure. Following dedication the land will form part of the City’s road network and all future maintenance will be budgeted as part of the City's road maintenance budget.

The cost of undertaking a Legal Agreement to enter into with the owner regarding each party’s responsibility for costs and obligations under the proposed land transactions is estimated to be $2,500.

All other costs associated with the amalgamation of the ‘closure portion’ of ROW 29022 with Lot 2, House Number 253, Crawford Road, Inglewood will be the responsibility of the applicant.


Item 13.7 93



Outcome B3: Built infrastructure that meets community needs



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Vegetation impact Dedication of this ROW as a road will enable the City to upgrade, repair, maintain and manage the road.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Health, wellbeing and safety The acquisition of this ROW will give the City the necessary authority to control overgrown vegetation and ensure that issues relating to illegal rubbish, dumping, safety and general tidiness are addressed.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure The acquisition of this ROW will allow the City to maintain the area in the future, offering residents well maintaned infrastructure. Additionally, progressing the proposal will ensure ongoing access provision via a dedicated road link between the both Rights of Way.

Conclusion

The City received six submissions following the public consultation around the proposed acquisition, closure and subsequent dedication of ROW 29022. The City is of the opinion it has addressed each submission sufficiently to recommend that Council proceeds with the approval of the acquisition and subsequent closure and dedication of ROW 29022, being Lot 66, House Number 46R, Normanby Road, Inglewood which has the following benefits to the City:-

The City secures a portion of the privately owned ROW 29022 without the need to pay a monetary value for the land;

The progression of the proposal will ensure ongoing connectivity between the two Rights of Way; and

Progressing with these land transactions will allow the City the ability to undertake upgrades, repairs, maintenance and management of the dedicated portion of ROW 29022. This will result in improved services to the local community.


Item 13.7 - Attachment 1 - Locality Plan 94


Item 13.7 - Attachment 2 - Plan 95


Item 13.8 96

13.8 RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - DEDICATION OF RIGHTS OF WAY FOR UPGRADE IN THE 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Director Infrastructure


Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition








Item 13.8 97

Recommendation

1. That the Minister for Lands be REQUESTED to dedicate the following Private Rights of Way as road pursuant to Section 56(1)(c) of the Land Administration Act 1997:-

a. ROW 17003 being the portion of Lot 79 on Plan 4106 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2762 Folio 514 as shown in Attachment 1 – Locality Plan A;

b. ROW 24009 and ROW 24011 being the whole of Lot 66 on Diagram 20628 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1631 Folio 813 as shown in Attachment 2 – Locality Plan B;

c. ROW 13004 being the whole of Lot 66 on Diagram 22235 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1406 Folio 327 as shown in Attachment 3 – Locality Plan C;

d. ROW 16049 being the portion of Lot 77 on Plan 4106 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2762 Folio 512 as shown in Attachment 4 – Locality Plan D;

e. ROW 16057 being the whole of Lot 1408 on Plan 2856 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2737 Folio 253 as shown in Attachment 5 – Locality Plan E;

f. ROW 23008 being the whole of Lot 173 on Plan 3059 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2726 Folio 335 as shown in Attachment 6 – Locality Plan F;

g. ROW 27020 being the whole of Lot 101 on Plan 2553 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2757 Folio 785 as shown in Attachment 7 – Locality Plan G;

h. ROW 27021 being the whole of Lot 104 on Plan 2553 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2757 Folio 788 as shown in Attachment 8 – Locality Plan H;

i. ROW 17015, ROW 17016 and ROW 17017 being the whole of Lot 72 on Plan 4106 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2762 Folio 507 as shown in Attachment 9 – Locality Plan I;

j. ROW 28067 being the whole of Lot 607 on Plan 2877 being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2970 Folio 352 as shown in Attachment 12 – Locality Plan J;

k. ROW 14008 being the whole of Lot 1002 on Plan 3697 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2734 Folio 908 as shown in Attachment 13 – Locality Plan K.


Item 13.8 98

2. That the Minister for Lands be REQUESTED to dedicate the following land as road pursuant to Section 56 (a) of the Land Administration Act 1997:-

a. Land abutting ROW 17003 comprising of:-

i. Crown Reserve 50293 being Lot 301 on Strata Plan 67614 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3167 Folio 534;

ii. Crown Reserve 50293 being Lot 300 on Strata Plan 67614 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3167 Folio 533; and

iii. Lot 51 on Deposited Plan 40902 being the whole of land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2564 Folio 284.

b. Land abutting ROW 16049 comprising of:-

i. Crown Reserve 50035 being Lot 99 on Strata Plan 72682 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3167 Folio 595 and

c. Land abutting ROW 16057 comprising of:-

i. Lot 302 on Strata Plan 62561 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3161 Folio 897;

ii. Lot 301 on Strata Plan 62562 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3161 Folio 258; and

iii. Lot 300 on Strata Plan 67989 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3164 Folio 56.

d. Land abutting ROW 17017 comprising of:-

i. Crown Reserve 49817 being Lot 300 on Strata Plan 66132 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3163 Folio 432.

e. Land abutting ROW 17016 comprising of:-

i. Crown Reserve 49817 being Lot 300 on Strata Plan 48657 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3138 Folio 589;

ii. Crown Reserve 49817 being Lot 301 on Strata Plan 61478 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3160 Folio 946; and

iii. Crown Reserve 49817 being Lot 300 on Strata Plan 62759 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3162 Folio 621.


Item 13.8 99

f. Land abutting ROW 28067 comprising of:-

i. Lot 300 on Strata Plan 61970 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3162 Folio 635; and

ii. Lot 300 on Strata Plan 69757 being the whole of land comprised in Crown Land Title Volume LR3165 Folio 210.

3. That Council ADVISES the Minister for Lands that any future land set aside for widening, ceded after the resolution but prior to the dedication of these Rights of Way, be included as part of the City’s dedication application.

4. That the Minister for Lands be INDEMNIFIED from any claims arising from the dedication actions.

5. That Council RELINQUISHES any Management Order issued over the Crown Land which is the subject of this report.

Report Purpose

To seek approval to request the Minister for Lands to dedicate 14 Rights of Way (ROWs) and 13 abutting lots as road. These ROWs are proposed for upgrading by the City in the 2022/2023 financial year in accordance with the objectives for the City’s Rights of Way Management Strategy.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan A - ROW 17003 ⇩

Attachment 2 - Locality Plan B - ROW 24011 and 24009 ⇩

Attachment 3 - Locality Plan C - ROW 13004 ⇩

Attachment 4 - Locality Plan D - ROW 16049 ⇩

Attachment 5 - Locality Plan E - ROW 16057 ⇩

Attachment 6 - Locality Plan F - ROW 23008 ⇩

Attachment 7 - Locality Plan G - ROW 27020 ⇩

Attachment 8 - Locality Plan H - ROW 27021 ⇩

Attachment 9 - Locality Plan I - ROW 17017, 17016 and 17015 ⇩

Attachment 10 - Locality Plan J - ROW 28067 ⇩

Attachment 11 - Locality Plan K - ROW 14008 ⇩


Nil













Item 13.8 100

Background

At its meeting held 10 November 2009, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 1109/014) as follows:-

"1. That the revised funding approach for the Rights of Way Management Strategy using City Funds and Development Contributions be ENDORSED in light of the advice from the Department of Regional Development and Lands (Local Government) in relation to the use of Differential General Rates and the difficulty associated with administering a rating-based system of funding on strata properties.

2. That a 10 year program for upgrading and dedication of Categories 1, 2 and 3

Rights of Way and acquisition of Categories 4 and 5 Rights of Ways be ENDORSED.

3. That the draft Rights of Ways Management Strategy as modified and updated

(reflecting the revised funding approach using only City Funds and Development Contributions) be ADOPTED.

4. Prior to each Right Of Way being upgraded the adjacent Right Of Way residents

be CONSULTED and their views be considered prior to a decision being made on whether the Rights Of Way will be upgraded."

The objectives of the Right of Way Management Strategy include the dedication and upgrade of all Category 1, 2 and 3 ROWs as public roads to allow for the ROWs to be managed by the City. The dedication of Category 1, 2 and 3 ROWs is staged year to year in line with the City's design and upgrade works programme. This will allow each ROW to be vested in the City prior to the design and upgrade being undertaken.

Comment

The Department of Lands has advised the City that the request for dedication must include the legal description of subject land and copies of the relevant surveys (Plans, Strata Plans, Deposited Plans, Diagrams) with the lots to be dedicated highlighted. The Department of Lands also requires that the request be grouped into Private ROWs, Crown ROW and Crown Reserves as per the recommendations within this report. Pursuant to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) policy on ROW and Laneways, a number of ROW widening areas have been ceded from lots abutting the ROW to be dedicated. It is therefore proposed that these widening areas be dedicated concurrently with the dedication of the abutting ROW. The parcels of land set aside for widening are currently vested in the Crown as Crown ROW under Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (and formerly under Section 20A of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928). These Crown ROWs have been created as Crown Reserves for the purpose of ‘Rights of Way’ with or without a Management Order in favour of the City of Stirling.


Item 13.8 101

Naming of these Laneways and ROWs, as well as the associated widening areas, will be undertaken following dedication in accordance with the Geographic Names Committee’s ‘Principles, Guidelines and Procedures’ controlled by Landgate, as well as being in accordance with Council Resolution Number 0813/057 adopted by Council at its meeting held 20 August 2013, as follows:-

“That Council ENDORSE ‘Option 4 – Rights of Way Naming Maps’, as outlined in the Manager City Planning’s report.”


The Department of Lands, Planning and Heritage, the WAPC and the Geographic Names Committee have been consulted. The WAPC has advised that it does not object to the City progressively dedicating these parcels of land which have been ceded for ROW widening as the abutting ROWs are dedicated.


Sections 56(1)(a) and (c) of the Land Administration Act 1997 provide that a local government may request the Minister for Lands to dedicate land as a road.


The costs of undertaking a request for dedication by the City will be of an administrative nature and will not require significant expenditure. Following dedication, these ROWs will form part of the City’s road network and all future maintenance will be budgeted as part of the City's road maintenance budget.






ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Vegetation impact Progressing the Dedication of these Rights of Way will allow the City to design and construct the land as a road in future financial years. This will reduce the impact of overgrown vegetation, weeds and grasses impacting access in these Rights of Way.


Item 13.8 102

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Transport and access Dedication of these Rights of Way as road will provide better amenity and access to adjoining private land as future infill development occurs along these Rights of Way.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure The dedication of these Rights of Way will allow the City to maintain these areas in the future, offering residents well maintained infrastructure. Additionally, progressing the proposal will ensure ongoing access provision via a dedicated road link between these Rights of Ways and the existing road network.

Conclusion

At its meeting held 10 November 2009, Council resolved to adopt the Rights of Way Management Strategy, which includes scheduling of the City’s Upgrade Works Programme. To allow implementation of the Rights of Way Management Strategy, the City is proposing to undertake dedication actions, through the Department of Lands, Planning and Heritage, to progress the dedications for the 2022/2023 financial year. Progressing with these dedication actions will allow the City to undertake upgrades, repairs, maintenance and management of the Rights of Way as public roads. This will result in improved services to the local community


Item 13.8 - Attachment 1 - Locality Plan A - ROW 17003 103


Item 13.8 - Attachment 2 - Locality Plan B - ROW 24011 and 24009 104


Item 13.8 - Attachment 3 - Locality Plan C - ROW 13004 105


Item 13.8 - Attachment 4 - Locality Plan D - ROW 16049 106


Item 13.8 - Attachment 5 - Locality Plan E - ROW 16057 107


Item 13.8 - Attachment 6 - Locality Plan F - ROW 23008 108


Item 13.8 - Attachment 7 - Locality Plan G - ROW 27020 109


Item 13.8 - Attachment 8 - Locality Plan H - ROW 27021 110


Item 13.8 - Attachment 9 - Locality Plan I - ROW 17017, 17016 and 17015 111


Item 13.8 - Attachment 10 - Locality Plan J - ROW 28067 112


Item 13.8 - Attachment 11 - Locality Plan K - ROW 14008 113


Item 13.9 114

13.9 TENDER FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE AND WASTE SORTING SERVICES

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Manager Waste and Fleet

Business Unit: Waste and Fleet


Suburb: Balcatta


Definition







Recommendation

1. That the Tender from Suez Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd for Separable portion 1 of the Transport of Waste and Waste Sorting Services be ACCEPTED at the estimated total contract value of $4,643,000 per annum (excluding GST).

2. That the City NOT AWARD any tenders for Separable portions 2 and 3 for the

Transport of Waste and Waste Sorting Services.

Report Purpose

To report on the results from the public Invitation for Tender (IFT) and the evaluation of tenders, in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.


Item 13.9 115

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Schedule of Rates (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)

Attachment 2 - Weighted Scores (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)


Nil

Background

Tender Details

IFT Number 35767

IFT Title Transport of Waste and Waste Sorting Services

Recommended Tenderer(s) Suez Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd

Expenditure under this Contract is not capped or fixed. The estimated Contract award value is based on estimated expenditure at this time but may vary depending on budget availability.

Contract Term Initial: 1 year

Extension Options: 3 x 1 year options

Tendered Rates/Cost Provided in Attachment A to this report (confidential) Advertising: Saturday 28 March 2020 The West Australian

Tender Deadline: Wednesday 22 April 2020 1.00pm

Tender Opening: Wednesday 22 April 2020 3.00pm

Tender Submissions

Four tenders were received, including Alternative and non-conforming Tenders:-

Kelair Holdings Pty Ltd

Kelair Holdings Pty Ltd (alternate tender)

Stefna Family Trust

Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd

The Trustee for SP Unit Trust

Contract

Commencement Date of New Contract: 4 August 2020

Completion Date of New Contract: 4 August 2021

Estimated Value of New Contract: $4,643,000 per annum (excluding GST)

Price Basis of New Contract: Schedule of Rates


Item 13.9 116

Tender Evaluation Panel

The tender evaluation panel comprised of four members, including a Business Unit Manager (Chairperson) and Officer(s). Process and probity advice during evaluation was provided by a City Procurement Officer. Evaluation of Tenders

The objective of the evaluation panel is to recommend a suitably qualified and experienced Contractor or Contractors to satisfy the requirement of the above mentioned IFT. Based on evaluation of the received submissions and subsequent compliance assessments, the Evaluation Panel recommends that the Respondent(s) recommended in this report be accepted at the estimated Contract value and Contract term provided, from the anticipated commencement date. Evaluation Justification The primary objective of this contract is to provide transportation of waste received in the Waste Transfer Station at Recycling Centre Balcatta to appropriate disposal or material recovery facilities in a timely and efficient manner in line with regulatory requirements. The tender was released and split into separable portions in order to accommodate an expanded scope. The separable portions applicable to this tender were as below:-

Separable portion 1 – Transportation of Municipal Waste, Transportation of Recycling and other materials, and processing of materials through a materials recovery facility;

Separable portion 2 – Construction and Demolition materials; and

Separable portion 3 – Clean Green Waste (Bulk). Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd did not submit for separable portions 2 or 3. The Trustee for SP Unit Trust did not submit for Separable Portion 1. Separable portion 1 is the equivalent of the current expiring contract. The submission and prices from the recommended tenderer were assessed to represent best value for money to the City. The submissions and prices for Separable Portions 2 and 3 did not represent best value for money to the City and will be re-scoped and readvertised at a later date. Current contracts exist to cover these portions until 2021, and the City is not disadvantaged in declining these portions at this time.


Item 13.9 117

Comment

All members of the evaluation panel have made a conflict of interest declaration in writing confirming they have no relationships with any of the tenderers. It is confirmed that the following checks have been undertaken:-

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Reference Checks successfully?

YES

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Probity assessment and been deemed compliant?

YES

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Financial Viability assessment and been deemed acceptable?

YES

Was a Conflict of Interest declared? If yes, please specify how it was managed

NO

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Occupational Safety and Health assessment and been deemed acceptable?

YES


In accordance with Section 1.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 14(1) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 the Tender was advertised in a state wide publication. A link to the Tender documents was also made available via the City’s website.


The Tender has been conducted in accordance with Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.


Account Number: Balcatta Transfer Station – A0194

Budget Item: External Contract Services

Budget Amount: $4,882,974 FY2020/2021 (excluding GST)

Proposed Cost: $4,643,000 per annum (excluding GST)

All figures quoted in this report are exclusive of GST. The proposed new rates are discounted when compared to the existing contract. This would see the rate to transport municipal waste reduce by $0.95 per tonne (4%); and the processing fee (inclusive of transport) for material processed at Bibra Lake reduce by $9.53 per tonne (5%).


Item 13.9 118

It will continue to be more cost effective to process material through Bibra Lake than landfill, with a provisional $56.50 per tonne cost efficiency, whilst achieving approximately 40% landfill diversion.


Natural Environment: Sustainable natural environment

Outcome N1: Sustainable natural resources

Strategy N1.1.1: Ensure efficient, effective and innovative waste services and use of materials to reduce, reuse and recycle



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Waste generation The recovery of materials, through the Material Recover Facility, has diverted 8,519 tonnes of waste away from landfill in the 12 months to 30 April 2020.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Evaluation Panel recommends that the contract for the Transport of Waste and Waste Sorting Services for the City of Stirling be awarded to Suez Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd at the rates listed in Attachment 1 at a total estimated contract cost of $4,683,000 (excluding GST).


Item 13.10 119

13.10 TENDER FOR THE STEPHENSON AVENUE EXTENSION PHASE 1

Report Information

Location: Stephenson Avenue, Osborne Park


Reporting Officer: Manager Facilities, Projects & Assets

Business Unit: Facilities, Projects & Assets

Ward: Osborne and Doubleview

Suburb: Osborne Park


Definition







Recommendation

1. That the Tender from Densford Civil Pty Ltd for Separable Portions 1 and 2 of the Stephenson Avenue Extension Project Phase 1 be ACCEPTED at the estimated total contract value shown in the confidential attachments.

2. That the Quote from Densford Civil Pty Ltd for Forward Works of the Stephenson

Avenue Extension Project Phase 1 be ACCEPTED at the estimated total value shown in the confidential attachments.

3. That Council APPROVES for the Chief Executive Officer to be granted delegated

authority to accept variations to the contract within the budget shown in the confidential attachments.

NB: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED AT COUNCIL


Item 13.10 120

Report Purpose

To report on the results of the public Invitation for Tender (IFT) and the evaluation of tenders, in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Weighted scores (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)

Attachment 2 - Schedule of tenders received (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)

Attachment 3 - Financial implications (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover)


Nil

Background

The Stephenson Avenue Extension project includes the extension of the existing Stephenson Avenue through to Cedric Street and construction of a new freeway interchange. The extension runs through 13 hectares of land-locked vacant land which will be opened up for development as a result in accordance with the Stirling City Centre strategy. The project will also reduce traffic along Scarborough Beach Road, freeing up road capacity for the future construction of dedicated bus lanes and ultimately a light rail or trackless tram system. Following a $60 million commitment by the Western Australian State Government and a matching $65 million commitment by the Federal Government, the project will be delivered over two phases, with responsibilities shared between the City of Stirling and Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) as follows:-

Phase 1: Stephenson Avenue from Scarborough Beach Road to Sarich Court (delivered by the City)

Phase 1A: Stephenson Avenue from Sarich Court to Cedric Street (delivered by the City)

Phase 2: Freeway interchange (delivered by MRWA) and completion of Stephenson Avenue from Sarich Court to Cedric Street.

The phasing is shown in the diagram below.

https://project.mainroads.wa.gov.au/home/stephenson/Pages/default.aspx

https://project.mainroads.wa.gov.au/home/stephenson/Pages/default.aspx


Item 13.10 121

The Project Team has established a Governance Structure involving a Project Steering Group (PSG), Project Control Group (PCG) and Technical Working Group which are shown in a Funding Agreement signed by the City and the Commissioner of Main Roads in April 2020. This agreement is for the delivery of Phase 1 allowing procurement to proceed. The agreement has identified a ‘contribution sum’ (shown in the confidential attachments) which is the maximum amount of funding Main Roads is liable to pay to the City for Phase 1 without the need for further approval through the PSG. This will be paid in advance on an agreed cash flow projection. The funding agreement allows the City to complete the project within the contribution sum budget but must consult with Main Roads in respect of all claims other than ordinary progress claims (variations). Non-discretionary variations over and above the contribution sum must be approved by the Project Control Group before being carried out. If such a variation is discretionary, it must be approved by the Project Steering Group. As a result, delegated authority for the Director Infrastructure to approve variations within the budget (contribution sum) will be requested noting Main Roads will be consulted. Once complete, the Stephenson Avenue extension will provide a connection from Scarborough Beach Road to Cedric Street with a new Mitchell Freeway interchange. The project is a key component of the Stirling City Centre project which will unlock private investment in the area, relieve traffic congestion, increase employment opportunities and support future light rail in this key CBD hub. The contract consists of two separable portions: Separable Portion 1 includes the main contract (road) works and Separable Portion 2 includes Water Corporation Drainage works. The portions were initially separated to allow future flexibility in design and procurement of the drainage works if required (which it is not).


Item 13.10 122

Tender Details

IFT Number 35616

IFT Title Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1

Recommended Tenderer(s) Densford Civil Pty Ltd

Expenditure under this Contract is fixed with some Provisional Sums (PS) allowed within the Fixed Lump Sum Price (FLSP). The estimated Contract award value is based on the FLSP and allowances for PS at this time but may vary depending on actual work completed.

Contract Term Initial: 12 months

Extension Options: Not Applicable

Defects Liability Period: 52 weeks following Practical Completion for respective Separable Portions

Tendered Rates/Cost Provided in Attachment A to this report (confidential) Advertising: Wednesday 19 February 2020 The West Australian

Tender Deadline: Wednesday 8 April 2020 1.00pm

Tender Opening: Wednesday 8 April 2020 3.00pm

Tender Submissions

Eight tenders were received, including alternative and non-conforming Tenders:-

B.M.D. Constructions Pty Limited

Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd

Decmil Australia Pty Ltd

Densford Civil Pty Ltd

Ertech Pty Ltd

Georgiou Group Pty Ltd

Ralmana Pty Ltd

WBHO Infrastructure Pty Ltd

Contract

Proposed Commencement Date of New Contract: 1 July 2020

Proposed Completion Date of New Contract: 30 June 2021

Estimated Value of New Contract: Shown in confidential attachments

Price Basis of New Contract: Estimated total contract value, includes fixed price items and provisional sums.

Tender Evaluation Panel

The tender evaluation panel comprised seven members, including a Business Unit Manager (Chairperson), and Officer(s). A Probity Plan and probity advice during evaluation was provided by City Procurement Officers and audited by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.


Item 13.10 123

Evaluation of Tenders

The objective of the evaluation panel is to recommend a suitably qualified and experienced Contractor or Contractors to satisfy the requirement of the above mentioned IFT. Based on evaluation of the received submissions and subsequent compliance assessments, the Evaluation Panel recommend that the Respondent(s) recommended in this report be accepted at the estimated Contract value and Contract term provided, from the anticipated commencement date. Evaluation Justification All scoring members of the Evaluation Panel reviewed submissions and came together in a consensus meeting. Based on consensus scoring and discussion, the panel agreed that all but one of the tenderers performed well in the qualitative (non-priced) assessment. Ralmana Pty Ltd did not meet a mandatory Federal Funding requirement and was excluded from further assessment. Price scoring was based on the initial tender pricing supplied. Clarifications were sought from all seven remaining tenderers and prices adjusted based on the clarification feedback. Following review of the qualitative assessment and the adjusted pricing after the tender clarifications, the Panel shortlisted the following three tenderers with the most advantageous offers to the City:-

1. Densford Civil Pty Ltd

2. Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd

3. B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd Further clarifications were sought from all three shortlisted tenderers and they were invited to present to the Evaluation Panel on their construction methodologies, innovation initiatives and program. These presentations also provided the opportunity for the panel to ask further detailed questions on their submissions. The Evaluation Panel also undertook reference checks and financial capacity checks on all three shortlisted tenderers. Based on the tender submissions, clarifications, shortlisting process and compliance assessments, the Evaluation Panel recommends award of Separable Portions 1 and 2 of the Stephenson Avenue Extension Project Phase 1 to Densford Civil Pty Ltd. This is based on both the results of the evaluation process and the combined non-priced and priced scores. Further information obtained from the probity, financial and OSH evaluations did not identify any significant conflicts which would prohibit award. Pricing for the Forward Works of the required vegetation clearing was also sought from the seven tenderers remaining and compared against quotes received from the City’s tree clearing panel outside the tender process. The Evaluation Panel agreed that it was beneficial to the project schedule, project contamination risk and cost to award the forward works package to Densford Civil Pty Ltd.

Comment

All members of the evaluation panel have made a conflict of interest declaration in writing confirming they have no relationships with any of the tenderers.


Item 13.10 124

It is confirmed that the following checks have been undertaken:-

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Reference Checks successfully?

YES

No comments

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Probity assessment and been deemed compliant?

YES

No comments

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Financial Viability assessment and been deemed acceptable?

YES

No comments

Was a Conflict of Interest declared? If yes, please specify how it was managed

NO

No comments

Has the recommended Tenderer(s) undergone Occupational Safety and Health assessment and been deemed acceptable?

YES

No comments


In accordance with Section 1.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 14(1) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 the Tender was advertised in a state wide publication. A link to the Tender documents was also made available via the City’s website.


The Tender has been conducted in accordance with Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.


Shown in confidential attachments:





Item 13.10 125



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Pollution Asbestos remediation of the site forms part of the scope of works in line with the Department of Health and Department of Water and Environmental Regulations. The Contractor will provide a detailed Asbestos Management Plan detailing the asbestos remediation methods to be undertaken by a qualified Asbestos contractor.

Vegetation impact As part of the scope of works the contractor will need to clear vegetation in accordance with the approved vegetation clearing permit.

Waste generation The City has specified the Contractor to undertake sustainable initiatives on site including reduction, reuse and recycling of site waste and reuse of generated site materials.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity The Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1 will provide a new connection between Scarborough Beach Road and Ellen Stirling Boulevard improving the amenity for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and potentially reducing traffic.

Community engagement The City undertook significant consultation on the Stephenson Avenue Extension project as part of the Stirling City Centre project.

Transport and access The Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1 project will improve the transport and access opportunities for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in Osborne Park and Innaloo.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Job creation The Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1 project will create approximately 100 construction jobs.

Transport and infrastructure The Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1 will provide a new connection between Scarborough Beach Road and Ellen Stirling Boulevard improving the efficiency and accessibility of transports modes in Osborne Park and Innaloo.

Conclusion

The Evaluation Panel recommends that the contract for the Separable Portions 1 and 2, and Forward Works, of the Stephenson Avenue Extension Phase 1 project be awarded to Densford Civil Pty Ltd.


Item 13.11 126

13.11 REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Manager Governance

Business Unit: Governance

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition







Recommendation

1. That in accordance with Section 5.46 (2) of the Local Government Act 1995, Council REVIEWS its delegations to the Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Review Committee and those delegations to the Chief Executive Officer.

2. That in accordance with Section 5.42(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, Council ADOPTS the amended delegations of authority to the Chief Executive Officer as detailed in Attachment 1.

NB: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED AT COUNCIL


Item 13.11 127

Report Purpose

In accordance with Section 5.46(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, this report is presented to enable Council to review its delegation to the Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Review Committee and those operational delegations to be performed by the Chief Executive Officer as detailed in Attachment 1.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer's Performance Review Committee and Chief Executive Officer - proposed amendments marked up ⇩


Nil

Background

The Local Government Act 1995 requires that all delegations must be reviewed by Council at least once every financial year. Council adopted the last review at its meeting held 11 June 2019.

Comment

A review of the functions to be performed, conditions and legislations of the current delegations has been undertaken in accordance with Section 5.46(2) of the Local Government Act 1995. Purchase Orders This delegation allows the Chief Executive Officer and other officers with respective authority to approve the payment of invoices for services or products supplied to the City. The delegation currently has a band system that sets the limit and expenditure that can be approved by officers within a specific category.

Category A – Unlimited Individual Value.

Category B – Limited to $250,000.

Category C – Limited to $100,000.

Category D – Limited to $50,000.

Category E – Limited to $25,000.

Category F – Limited to $10,000.

Category G – Limited to $5,000. “Category A – Unlimited Individual Value” is deemed to be broad. It is proposed to insert the wording for clarity as a condition of the delegation, to ensure it is clear and accurately reflects the function to be performed:- “Category A – Unlimited Individual Value with the authority to approve purchase orders subject to annual budget limitations and legislative compliance.”



Item 13.11 128

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Local Planning Scheme No.3. The changes to general delegations are minor in effect and in summary include the following:-

A change in terminology from determination to approval will allow delegated officers to refuse applications under delegated authority.

Some of the City’s Local Planning Policies and Local Development Plans allow for “on-street” car parking to be considered in the car parking calculation. Removal of the term “on-site” will ensure the delegations align with the planning framework.

The change to “undue adverse impacts” provides greater clarity to officers as to the extent of their delegation.

Removal of “deemed to comply provisions of the” Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) is required as the legislation has changed and reference to deemed to comply provisions is not appropriate.

Minor corrections have been updated.


The Executive Team and all Business Units were engaged in the review.


Section 5.46(2) if the Local Government Act 1995 requires the local government to review its delegations at least once every financial year. The proposed amendments are provided for under Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


Nil.



Outcome G1: Good governance


Item 13.11 129



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The review was undertaken to determine the appropriateness of the existing delegations and need for any additional delegations or amendments. The review considered that the existing delegations provide adequate operational efficiencies, while the inclusion of additional legislative references will ensure legislative compliance.


Item 13.11 - Attachment 1 - Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer's Performance Review Committee and Chief Executive Officer - proposed amendments marked up 130


153

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

15. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING

16. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

17. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE

18. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

19. CLOSURE

The Presiding Member to declare the meeting closed.